I doubt this will convince anyone who wasn't convinced by the 60 other IOM reviews of vaccine safety, but the IOM has completed the most comprehensive review or the vaccine schedule to date, as well as making suggestions for future research and ways to improve communication between various stakeholders.

It isn't worth spending much time and energy to take on the new Institute of Medicine report on vaccine safety concerns-- bought and paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services -- except to note that as the Feds continue trying to bottle up the truth about the autism epidemic, it keeps leaking out everywhere else. The Vaccine Court rulings this week, uncovered by the outstanding reporting of David Kirby and validated over and over by the Unanswered Questions report of EBCALA, are far more important in the long run than the dying yelps of the medical-industrial complex.

"While the report found that a randomized study would be the best way to conclusively compare the health of children who have had immunizations with those who haven’t, it also recommended against performing such as a study. That is because it would raise ethical concerns."

Seems like only in the pharm world is it unethical to do a randomized study. They don't want to open up that can of worms.

Obvious who is paying the bills.

Oh, well, this may never come to a reality of finding out what really works.

Working on it for a year isn't the point. It's the timing of its release to try and head off any backlash from the Vaccine Court's recent decisions that is relevant.

Just because vaccination is established medical treatment, doesn't make it beneficial. Blood letting was established medical treatment. They really don't want to know the differences between the health of vaxed vs unvaxed, so yet again they bring up the old unethical chestnut!

I don't understand what the "backlash" is supposed to be. Families were compensated for table events. What's the big deal?

From a medical ethics standpoint it does matter that its established medical procedure and that there is a substantial amount of evidence pointing to them being safe, effective, and lowering the risk of morbidity and mortality.

1. NO NEW INFORMATION. They did nothing new to conclude that the current vaccine schedule is safe or safer than an alternative one. They just examined what was currently available and made their determination from that there is no evidence the current schedule is unsafe. Wow and it took them a whole year to do it.

2. The IOM admits that a vax vs unvax study would provide the most useful information, and is "the strongest study design type". That's why the Jackson State study is so important.

3. The claim that a vaxed vs unvaxed is unethical, but until this done, parents will continue to refuse vaccines over the safety issue. The horse left the barn already, and people are wising up.

4. He doesn't agree with what the IOM states that there is an inadequate number of of unvaxed children (1%), and feels it is more like 5% or even as high as 10%. There is a new international study that shows 10%of households had completely unvaxed children.

Quote:

The end result of this IOM report is that nothing has changed. Worried parents don’t have any new research or information to consider. The CDC has declared loud and clear that they won’t begin any new research on vaccine safety, especially involving a comparative unvaccinated control group. The debate over vaccine safety will continue on.

I don't understand what the "backlash" is supposed to be. Families were compensated for table events. What's the big deal?

From a medical ethics standpoint it does matter that its established medical procedure and that there is a substantial amount of evidence pointing to them being safe, effective, and lowering the risk of morbidity and mortality.

The deal is managing public perception on the safety of vaccines.

They did nothing NEW to establish the vaccine schedule is safe. Same old, same old........

Well, my child suffered an obvious vaccine reaction which resulted in some of those afflictions, there have been settlement awards for other vaccine injured children with the symptoms they claim have no link to vaccines, and the most recent study of VAERS found vaccines to be of significant risk. But of course, things of that nature don't pad the bottom line so they don't need consideration.

They're reviewing the body of research, which many people find valuable. This review was particularly valuable, to me, because it looked at the schedule as a whole vs individual or a few vaccines or ingredients.

I also think they made some good recommendations for further research. It's good to see the scientific community doesn't consider the book closed on vaccine research.

I found it pretty reassuring too. It's nice to see a genuine independent look at the research out there and a set of recommendations on safety tests which would be good to do which aren't coming from websites which appear to have huge anti-vaccination agendas hidden under a veneer of "it's all about safety testing". That's my opinion anyway.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences). Vaccines save lives.

Here's a list of some of the non-profit groups that donate money to the IoM.

W. K. Kellogg Foundation (tied to the Kellogg's cereal company)
• The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
• Merck Company Foundation
• The Whitehead Foundation (ties to Goldman Sachs, and John C. Whitehead was a former board member of the Federal Reserve. He also oversaw the Whitehead family's fortune of investments in the Rockefeller Group.)

And:

• ConAgra, Inc.- sued for falsely labeling GMO oils as "natural"

• McDonald’s Corporation

• Monsanto Company

"The IoM receives millions of dollars in grant money from pharmaceutical companies, using that money to create new staff positions which claim to be "providing the nation with sound advice grounded in scientific evidence, to improve people’s health and well-being."

In addition, the IoM has financial ties to Merck, Pfizer, Astrazeneca and nearly all the top pharmaceutical companies, most of which also profit from producing and selling vaccines:

I don't know. That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is that I believe the financial ties to this organization are questionable to me. I believe the funding sources might have an influence on the findings of the IoM. I'm interested in disclosing this information to others, so they can decide if they find the IoM trustworthy or not. It doesn't matter if I can find acceptable funding sources--the reality is that the IoM is receiving funding from these sources, and the findings are always in their favor. How can we know for sure that the IoM isn't influenced by their supporters? Knowing who funds them, I'm not surprised at all that they are in favor of the current vaccine schedule.

It doesn't matter what groups I would hypothetically choose. Let's stick to the facts, alright? The FACT is that the IoM is and has been funded by the same groups that are directly involved with vaccines and vaccination policy.

Question: Knowing the sources of funding, how independent and unbiased can they really be? That's a real question, not "who does Miss BeckyBird want to fund the IoM? See the difference? One is real, and one is hypothetical and pointless.

By asking me about my personal choices in a hypothetical scenario, you are trying to redirect our attention off the issue of IoM's funding. Again, the issue is not about me or my decisions, but about the actual groups who have funded and are currently funding the IoM.

And it's irrelevent if the IoM just take the money and then conduct themselves with integrity. The two are not linked in my opinion. It's not always the case that donations would buy the desired results.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences). Vaccines save lives.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Proud member of #teamvaxchoice To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Looks like you (or I) can donate money to support the IoM: http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM/Support-IOM.aspx
Sounds like a good way to remove any concerns over influence from pharmaceutical companies would be to help them raise so much money that those contributions are not needed or are negligible....

And it's irrelevent if the IoM just take the money and then conduct themselves with integrity. The two are not linked in my opinion. It's not always the case that donations would buy the desired results.

There's no need for mockery. (ie Lance Armstrong comment).

I would start by reading the books and articles of former New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell, MD, who has extensively investigated how corporate funding affects research outcomes.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Proud member of #teamvaxchoice To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.